The School Choice Programs Democrats Hate Have Saved Taxpayers Up To $45 Billion
When families receive an ESA, which is typically around half of what the state spends per public education student, the state saves money.
The Republican Party of Arizona filed a lawsuit against Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) on Thursday, claiming that two of her executive orders “unlawfully” and “unilaterally” altered the state’s existing election laws.
Arizona GOP chair Gina Swoboda sued Hobbs over Executive Order 23, Authorizing the Use of State Facilities as Voting Locations, and Executive Order 25, Facilitating Voter Registration.
'Blatant overreach of her authority.'
Hobbs issued the orders in November 2023. Executive Order 23 designated the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry, as well as other state-run agencies, as ballot drop-off locations. Executive Order 25 designated those state departments as “Voter Registration Assistance Agencies” that are to “distribute voter registration forms, assist applicants in completing voter registration forms, and accept completed voter registration forms.”
According to the lawsuit, Hobbs “exceeded, and is therefore unlawfully exercising, her authority as Governor, in issuing EO 23 and EO 25.” It argued that both executive actions are “unconstitutional and void.”
“Petitioners seek to enjoin Governor Hobbs from enforcing EO 23 and EO 25 on the grounds they exceed the powers granted her by the Arizona Constitution and Arizona statutes, violate the separation of powers regarding the Legislature’s authority to enact election laws; and usurp the powers lawfully granted to the Secretary of State regarding the designation of Voter Registration Agencies and county recorders regarding ballot drop-off locations,” the complaint read. “EO 23 and EO 25 are contrary to law because, in issuing these executive orders, the Governor usurped the authority of the Legislature by unilaterally changed duly-enacted election laws.”
It noted that the orders fail to address other “important issues,” including “where to store completed ballots until they can be sent to the appropriate election officials or keeping a chain-of-custody log for these completed ballots.”
The lawsuit, which was filed directly with the Arizona Supreme Court, requests that the court declare the two executive actions unconstitutional, prevent Hobbs from enforcing the orders, and “issue a writ of quo warranto to prohibit Governor Hobbs from unlawfully exercising authority she lacks to change election laws.”
In a video posted to X, Swoboda explained, “The governor’s office does not have the authority, under the constitution or under any statutory authority, to designate voter registration agencies and definitely not to designate ballot drop-off locations or voting locations.”
She called the governor’s actions a “blatant overreach of her authority,” the Arizona Capitol Times reported.
Liliana Soto, a Hobbs press aide, told the news outlet that the lawsuit was “frivolous” and claimed the governor was using her “lawful authority” to protect voting rights.
Hobbs’ general counsel, Bo Dul, argued that the executive orders “further the important goals of increasing Arizonans’ access to voter registration.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
An Arizona pro-abortion outfit was able to get its radical proposition onto the November ballot but failed in its recent legal battle to secure the final say on how to describe its potential victims in the informational pamphlets sent to voters.
The assertion that the unborn are "human babies" is a statement of fact and basic science, yet it has proven incredibly controversial among pro-abortion activists in Arizona. The humanization of past and potential abortion victims may, after all, prompt voters to think twice about supporting Proposition 139 — the November ballot initiative that, if passed, would enshrine the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.
Republican members of the Arizona Legislative Council presented a draft analysis of the initiative last month, which highlighted that existing law prohibits abortion if the "unborn human being" is younger than 15 weeks, reported the Arizona Capitol Times. The document elsewhere employed abortion activists' preferred term "fetus."
"The ballot analysis prepared by the Legislative Council is intended to help voters understand current law. Arizona's 15-week law protects unborn children, while the abortion initiative essentially allows unrestricted abortions up until birth," Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, chairman of the Legislative Council, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It's really that simple."
Arizona for Abortion Access, the group championing the ballot initiative, sued to prevent the phrase "unborn human being" from appearing in the voter information pamphlet's description of Prop. 139. The group's contention was that the phrase is "tinged with partisan coloring" and that the language amounted to an "illegal effort to confuse voters."
While the abortion activists enjoyed initial success in the Maricopa County Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against them this week, indicating the lesser court was in error.
According to the Arizona Supreme Court, "unborn human being," which is the specific phrase used in existing law, "'substantially complies' with the statute's impartiality requirement.'"
The superior court's ruling has been reversed, and the pamphlet can go out with the language initially drafted by the defendants in the case, the members of the state Arizona Legislative Council.
State Senate President Warren Petersen (R) noted, "Common sense and good judgment prevailed."
'It's reckless to lose those safety precautions just to expand abortion beyond what most voters support.'
In the wake of its failure, Arizona for Abortion Access issued a statement saying, "The Arizona Supreme Court today reversed the trial court's well-reasoned ruling and held that the phrase 'unborn human being' — a watchword for anti-abortion advocates with no basis in medicine or science — is somehow impartial and objective."
"This means that Arizona voters will not be able to know the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate manner, but will be subjected to biased, politically charged words, developed not by experts, but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation," added the activist group.
While Arizona for Abortion Access has expressed concern about lawmakers' word use, critics have alternatively suggested the abortion outfit's ballot initiative, supported by Gov. Katie Hobbs and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, was itself deceptively worded.
The initiative suggests, for instance, that the state cannot interfere with an individual seeking or getting an abortion up until viability. However, it appears that even viable babies can be killed at any stage if a so-called health care professional can think up a reason why that baby does not stand a chance of survival outside of the uterus or, alternatively, why the baby's continued existence threatens the health of the "pregnant individual."
It Goes Too Far, the opposition campaign fighting the initiative, notes on its site that the use of the term "health care professional" means that individuals besides doctors, including abortionists incentivized to kill, can make such decisions.
The opposition campaign further indicates that the initiative would have Arizona shut out "moms and dads when their minor daughter needs them most by removing the parental consent requirement."
Earlier this year, Cindy Dahlgren, spokeswoman for It Goes Too Far, told the Arizona Mirror in an emailed statement, "Most voters are not told that under this unregulated, unlimited abortion amendment they will lose the required medical doctor, critical and commonsense safety standards for girls and women seeking abortion, and moms and dads will be shut out of their minor daughter's abortion decision, leaving her to go through the painful and scary process alone."
"Abortion is legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks, and we have commonsense safety precautions to protect girls and women. It's reckless to lose those safety precautions just to expand abortion beyond what most voters support," added Dahlgren.
Ballotpedia indicated that the Prop. 139 is one of several statewide ballot measures pertaining to abortion that has been certified for the general election ballot this year. Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New York, and South Dakota will similarly test voters' willingness to protect unborn human babies.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Just months after Republicans expressed concern over Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs' apparent willingness to "circumvent the laws of this state, the Democratic governor realized their fears, violating the law and unilaterally appointing 13 of her henchmen to lead state agencies.
A judge said as much in his Wednesday ruling, indicating that when Hobbs failed to legally get her way, she elected instead to run roughshod over Arizona law.
By law, the governor's Cabinet nominees can only be appointed with the consent of the Republican-controlled Arizona Senate.
The Senate's Committee on Director Nominations, led by state Sen. Jake Hoffman (R) and established last year to "evaluate executive nominations," grilled 11 of Hobbs' 22 nominees, approved seven, and rejected a handful, including pandemic shutdown champion Theresa Cullen.
Hoffman indicated in February 2023, "Now, make no mistake, this is a check on executive authority, but that is exactly what the legislature is supposed to do," reported the Arizona Mirror.
'Hobbs is the only person to blame for her nominees struggling to succeed under actual due diligence.'
Unwilling to put up with scrutiny from a co-equal branch of government, Hobbs withdrew her agency director nominations last fall, including her partisan nominees for the Arizona Department of Economic Security, the Department of Child Safety, the Department of Housing, the Department of Gaming, and the Department of Administration.
Hoffman called the move a "temper tantrum," suggesting in a statement that "Hobbs is the only person to blame for her nominees struggling to succeed under actual due diligence."
Hobbs told the president of the Arizona Senate, Warren Petersen (R), in a Sept. 25, 2023, letter that it had "become apparent over the past nine months that the Senate's process for reviewing and confirming agency director nominees has devolved into a sad display of partisan obstructionism."
Hobbs accused Petersen and his peers of engaging in a "political circus" and demonstrating an unwillingness to "carry out a valid process."
The Democrat then proceeded to engage in an invalid process all her own.
Upon withdrawing her 13 nominees, Hobbs branded those lawmakers who would dare evaluate her nominees as "extremists" and noted on X that she aimed to "pursue other lawful means of ensuring the state government can work for Arizonans."
'This move by the Executive Branch showcases another prime example of an elected official who believes they're above the law.'
The Democratic governor proceeded to nominate Ben Henderson to serve as interim director of 12 of the 13 agencies at issue for the purpose of enabling herself to appoint the withdrawn nominees as executive deputy directors of the agencies. Hobbs then instructed Henderson to "ratify and confirm" the deputies prior to resigning as interim director for each agency.
Hobbs made her 13 appointments on Sept. 25, 2023, and all were installed as de facto agency heads.
Petersen, who ultimately sued Hobbs over the scheme, said in a statement, "This move by the Executive Branch showcases another prime example of an elected official who believes they're above the law and will go to extreme measures to bypass the requirements of the law when they don’t get their way," reported the Arizona Mirror.
'The Governor willfully circumvented that statutory process.'
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) meanwhile defended Hobbs' play, stating that she was "well within her right to move forward with other legal means of keeping state government functioning and working for the people or Arizona."
"No law prohibits the Governor from withdrawing a person's nomination for an agency director and re-appointing him or her as a deputy director of that agency," added Mayes.
Judge Scott A. Blaney of the Maricopa County Superior Court was evidently of a different mind.
In his Wednesday ruling, Judge Blaney reiterated that the law requires that the appointment of a director for each of the 13 agencies requires the consent of the state Senate — something Hobbs did not bother with.
"The Governor willfully circumvented that statutory process and eliminated the Legislative branch from its oversight role," wrote Blaney.
Blaney found that "these 'Executive Deputy Directors' are de facto directors — unilaterally appointed to their leadership positions without Senate oversight in violation of Arizona law."
The court acknowledged that the deputy directors enjoy "all the powers and authorities that the agencies' properly appointed directors would have," have identical reporting chains, and "serve as the leaders of their respective agencies indefinitely at the pleasure of the Governor."
Extra to acknowledging that the Democratic governor made a mockery of the law, Blaney declared that state law still requires the governor to fill the director position lawfully, meaning a return to the senatorial confirmation process.
A separate evidentiary hearing will be scheduled next month or in August to further address the matter of Hobbs' illegitimate agency directors.
State Sen. Hoffman said in a statement in the wake of Hobbs' judicial rebuke, "Today Judge Blaney correctly slapped Katie Hobbs' illegal attempt to circumvent the constitutional check and balance of the senate confirmation process."
"I look forward to continuing our confirmation hearings in the near future now that much needed clarity on the law has been provided by the courts to Hobbs and her staff," continued Hoffman. "If Katie wishes to continue her petulant insults against me and to play petty political games, so be it; but I'm going to continue faithfully fulfilling my duty to the people of this great state to ensure that we have a sane government that works for every Arizonan."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!